Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs • Hacker News Board

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#91

Post by aes256 » Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 2:29 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #85

aes256 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The end result of all this is that NIMBYism creates scarcity (due to transportation inefficiency and by retarding new development) that makes houses expensive, and that causes people to be economically extremely sensitive to real estate changes (which are out of their control) which causes more NIMBYism. It's also yet another generational fuck-over of which we're on the losing side, the assholes pulled the ladder u…

It is an amazingly intractable catch-22 - if the government increase housing supply then a whole generation who are just about to retire lose almost all of their wealth; If they don't increase supply, a whole generation are unable to afford a home in which to raise a family. Whatever happens, it is almost inevitable that hundreds of billions of pounds will be funneled towards the baby boomers from the young or the ye…

It's a fascinating issue, and one that I think will come to dominate political discourse in the next 10-20 years.

NIMBYism has a lot to do with this, but the whole system is rigged against the young. We have a generation of teenagers, many of whom have a more mature understanding of issues such as student loans than older generations, but are not allowed to have a say.

BRB: Setting up a political party to represent Generation Y. Abolish the minimum voting age, massive housing expansion, force older generations to retrospectively pay tuition fees, reform drug policy, abolish copyright protection, appoint Cheryl Cole as the Queen, etc.

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#92

Post by rbanffy » Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 3:21 PM UTC

luser001 wrote: post #35

I actually support "vicious" speedbumps. People regularly drive 40 mph on my road which has official speed limit of 25 mph. Instead of spending money policing main streets, I support draconian camera-driven enforcement on side streets. Make unmarked google-maps-like cars with high quality cameras and software. Park it on streets and watch for traffic. Send tickets remotely to speeders (equivalent to running a red lig…

> I actually support "vicious" speedbumps. People regularly drive 40 mph on my road which has official speed limit of 25 mph.

A speeding camera is a better solution than a speedbump. You turn the problem into a revenue stream. And then you'll create a negative incentive for locals to reduce the speed limit even further.

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#93

Post by guylhem » Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 3:36 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #80

guylhem wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found a good example on seniors healthcare, while reading overcomingbias today. It hasn't been discussed that much in the thread. Maybe that's because of the political link of the issue? Then it's not a bad thing. Yet healthcare is the total opposite of anti-community !

Yes and no. It's definitely an externality issue where one group robs another via voting power, but it's not NIMBYism because it doesn't involve "backyards"/neighborhoods.

Define neighborhoods ie proximity on a time scale (age) instead of a geographic scale (backyards) and it seems like the exact same problem : a case where the voting density (voting power) function does not match the impacts function (who pays for what), with the cause of the externality being a proximity preference.

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#94

Post by chris_wot » Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 11:35 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #89

chris_wot wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia, this isn't such a problem. Voting is mandatory. I'll now await to hear the almost universal condemnation or be downvoted by American participants...

Of course, in Australia you can cast a null ballot. Given that, I quite like the Australian system.

Actually, that's not legal. However, they can't prove you've done that, given it's an anonymous ballot!

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#95

Post by jmias » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 1:10 AM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #87

jdietrich wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an amazingly intractable catch-22 - if the government increase housing supply then a whole generation who are just about to retire lose almost all of their wealth; If they don't increase supply, a whole generation are unable to afford a home in which to raise a family. Whatever happens, it is almost inevitable that hundreds of billions of pounds will be funneled towards the baby boomers from the young or the ye…

No, the solution sounds obvious to me: build more housing stock. Otherwise, the established real-estate values of the Baby Boom owners can never be realized as sales. A commodity that's too pricey won't sell, and the prospective seller will go broke. Only way is to lower the prices.

I realistically believe in this solution but also this is where our current market model would stop stare at the solution... and turn around (the price is hardly going down), imagine being the guy trying to sell the property for some company, would the company acknowledge this solution or wait it out to sell at next buyer, in summary this is where it stags probably being the right solution.